Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Have you filed your comments on the proposed 160m changes yet?  (Read 1596 times)
K4KYV
Member

Posts: 40




Ignore
« on: February 08, 2013, 10:53:02 AM »

The deadline is the 25th of this month.  Just 17 more days left.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017162926


So far, the response from the amateur community has been disappointing. Nothing from ARRL yet, but they probably will submit something.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=12-338


Here's how to file:

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/userManual/ecfsmanual.jsp


Don't let's give the FCC the impression that few hams care about maintaining and preserving this band.
Logged
N8NSN
Member

Posts: 283


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2013, 02:18:22 PM »

According to what I am getting out of reading the following copy-paste from the ARRL web site: the changes to 160 meters are a benefit to the amateur radio service. Am I not comprehending this correctly? From the way I read it we amateurs are getting 1800 to 2000 kc exclusively, now. Where as previously, 1900 to 2000 kc were a secondary (non-interference ) basis where the radio-locations "shared" that part of the band with the amateur radio service. It reads as if the rls has abandoned the 1900-2000 kc segment. Likely, IMO- due to satellite technology primarilly being used - via GPS.

Any thoughts would be appreciated... Especially if I'm misunderstanding any implications of the proposal.

72



Allocation Changes to 160 Meter Band

The FCC is proposing to change the Amateur Radio Service allocation to the 160 meter band (1800-2000 kHz), reallocating the 1900-2000 kHz segment to the Amateur Radio Service on a primary basis. In the NPRM, the FCC noted that “the ARRL has identified the 160 meter band and the amateur HF bands as ‘y far, the heaviest-used [Amateur Service] allocations.’”

Historically, the 1715-2000 kHz band was allocated exclusively to the Amateur Service. In 1953, the FCC removed the 1715-1800 kHz segment from the Amateur Radio Service and allocated the 1800-2000 kHz band to the Amateur Service on a shared basis with the Radionavigation Service. Then in 1983, the FCC allocated the 1800-1900 kHz band to the Amateur Service on an exclusive basis and the 1900-2000 kHz band to the Radiolocation Service on a primary basis for federal and non-federal use and to the Amateur Service on a secondary basis. The FCC stated that Radiolocation Service] allocation was made for reaccommodation purposes and not to provide additional spectrum for radiolocations needs,’ that the Commission has concluded its AM Expanded Band proceeding that would have prompted non-federal RLS licensees to relocate to the 1900-2000 kHz band and that this band was historically allocated to the Amateur Service on an exclusive basis.”
Logged
WD4CHP
Member

Posts: 145




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2013, 03:17:58 PM »

 no
Logged
K4KYV
Member

Posts: 40




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2013, 04:53:34 PM »

According to what I am getting out of reading the following copy-paste from the ARRL web site: the changes to 160 meters are a benefit to the amateur radio service. Am I not comprehending this correctly? From the way I read it we amateurs are getting 1800 to 2000 kc exclusively, now. Where as previously, 1900 to 2000 kc were a secondary (non-interference ) basis where the radio-locations "shared" that part of the band with the amateur radio service. It reads as if the rls has abandoned the 1900-2000 kc segment. Likely, IMO- due to satellite technology primarilly being used - via GPS.

Any thoughts would be appreciated... Especially if I'm misunderstanding any implications of the proposal.

I think you understand the point correctly. Click on the above links to the FCC site. The original FCC Notice can be viewed at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017137896
Scroll down to paragraph 20 on page 11.

Of course this is now a proposal and nothing is set in stone; no guarantee the FCC will act on it exactly as proposed.  We have yet to see if Radiolocation interests file comments in opposition, even though they are not using the segment right now. They might still want to hold onto the spectrum allocation.  That's why amateurs should file comments in support of the Commission's proposal, giving any good reason you can think of to justify the change as something in the public interest.  

It's not very often that the FCC takes the initiative to give something of benefit to the amateur community without our first having to petition for it.  We need to show our support and appreciation for their action in this matter.

Don
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 04:58:31 PM by K4KYV » Logged
W5FYI
Member

Posts: 1044




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2013, 10:45:04 AM »

Just curious, why did you refer to mHz (millihertz) in your proposal when you clearly meant MHz?  I know it's moot; the FCC will figure it out.
Logged
K4KYV
Member

Posts: 40




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2013, 10:31:02 PM »

Just curious, why did you refer to mHz (millihertz) in your proposal when you clearly meant MHz?  I know it's moot; the FCC will figure it out.

I have never heard the term millhertz, although I suppose such a thing exists. Wouldn't something with that long a period be referred to in terms of a time constant in milliseconds or seconds, instead of frequency? I recall always seeing it written as kHz and mHz, with the H in upper case because it is the abbreviation for a proper name. Maybe I never paid it any attention.  My spell  checker wants me to write it a KHz, but kHz is the format the FCC uses, and it would logically follow to use the same format for mHz. Where did you find that MHz and mHz have different meanings?  Actually, what I first learnt, before 1964, was mc/s and kc/s.

Don
Logged
W8AAZ
Member

Posts: 335




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2013, 06:24:58 AM »

Right now an effective antenna for 1.8 MHz. is just as unattainable as a 10 millihertz one, for me.  But I have listened there for decades, even thru the old loran grind.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!